Determinants of Shielding Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associations With Well-being Among National Health Service Patients: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service (NHS) classified 2.2 million people as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) during the first wave of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, advising them to "shield" (to not leave home for any reason). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the determinants of shielding behavior and associations with well-being in a large NHS patient population for informing future health policy. METHODS: Patients contributing to an ongoing longitudinal participatory epidemiology study (Longitudinal Effects on Wellbeing of the COVID-19 Pandemic [LoC-19], n=42,924) received weekly email invitations to complete questionnaires (17-week shielding period starting April 9, 2020) within their NHS personal electronic health record. Question items focused on well-being. Participants were stratified into four groups by self-reported CEV status (qualifying condition) and adoption of shielding behavior (baselined at week 1 or 2). The distribution of CEV criteria was reported alongside situational variables and univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Longitudinal trends in physical and mental well-being were displayed graphically. Free-text responses reporting variables impacting well-being were semiquantified using natural language processing. In the lead up to a second national lockdown (October 23, 2020), a follow-up questionnaire evaluated subjective concern if further shielding was advised. RESULTS: The study included 7240 participants. In the CEV group (n=2391), 1133 (47.3%) assumed shielding behavior at baseline, compared with 633 (13.0%) in the non-CEV group (n=4849). CEV participants who shielded were more likely to be Asian (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.49-2.76), female (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.45), older (OR per year increase 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), living in a home with an outdoor space (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.06-1.70) or three to four other inhabitants (three: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94; four: OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.01), or solid organ transplant recipients (OR 2.85, 95% CI 2.18-3.77), or have severe chronic lung disease (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30-2.04). Receipt of a government letter advising shielding was reported in 1115 (46.6%) CEV participants and 180 (3.7%) non-CEV participants, and was associated with adopting shielding behavior (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.82-3.95 and OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.04-3.99, respectively). In CEV participants, shielding at baseline was associated with a lower rating of mental well-being and physical well-being. Similar results were found for non-CEV participants. Concern for well-being if future shielding was required was most prevalent among CEV participants who had originally shielded. CONCLUSIONS: Future health policy must balance the potential protection from COVID-19 against our findings that shielding negatively impacted well-being and was adopted in many in whom it was not indicated and variably in whom it was indicated. This therefore also requires clearer public health messaging and support for well-being if shielding is to be advised in future pandemic scenarios.

Moving Forward While Standing Still: A Case of Mental Health Advocacy Evolving in the Time of COVID-19.

There have been shifts over time in the value placed on long-term psychotherapeutic modalities even though they can be life-saving. For example, the province of Ontario in Canada has been dealing with a government proposal put forward in 2019 to limit the length of psychotherapy treatment. In response, stakeholders from numerous groups came together to advocate for the importance of continuing unrestricted access to long-term psychotherapy. Approaches to this advocacy then had to unexpectedly adapt to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that came to the forefront in 2020 and will continue to develop in response to this changing landscape.

Priority Given to Technology in Government-Based Mental Health and Addictions Vision and Strategy Documents: Systematic Policy Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to deliver mental health and addictions (MHA) services is a global priority, especially considering the urgent shift towards virtual delivery of care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to monitor the evolving role of technology in MHA services. Given that MHA policy documents represent the highest level of priorities for a government's vision and strategy for mental health care, one starting point is to measure the frequency with which technology is mentioned and the terms used to describe its use in MHA policy documents (before, during, and after COVID-19). Yet, to our knowledge, no such review of the extent to which ICTs are referred to in Canadian MHA policy documents exists to date. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic policy review was to examine the extent to which technology is addressed in Canadian government-based MHA policy documents prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to establish a baseline for documenting change. METHODS: We reviewed 22 government-based MHA policy documents, published between 2011 and 2019 by 13 Canadian provinces and territories. We conducted content analysis to synthesize the policy priorities addressed in these documents into key themes, and then systematically searched for and tabulated the use of 39 technology-related keywords (in English and French) to describe and compare jurisdictions. RESULTS: Technology was addressed in every document, however, to a varying degree. Of the 39 searched keywords, we identified 22 categories of keywords pertaining to the use of technology to deliver MHA services and information. The 6 most common categories were tele (n=16/22), phone (n=12/22), tech (n=11/22), online (n=10/22), line (n=10/22), and web (n=10/22), with n being the number of policy documents in which the category was mentioned out of 22 documents. The use of terms referring to advanced technologies, such as virtual (n=6/22) and app (n= 4/22), were less frequent. Additionally, policy documents from some provinces and territories (eg, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador) mentioned a diverse range of ICTs, whereas others described only 1 form of ICT. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that technology has been given limited strategic attention in Canadian MHA policy. Policy makers may have limited knowledge on the evidence and potential of using technology in this field, highlighting the value for knowledge translation and collaborative initiatives among policy makers and researchers. The development of a pan-Canadian framework for action addressing the integration and coordination of technology in mental health services can also guide initiatives in this field. Our findings provide a prepandemic baseline and replicable methods to monitor how the use of technology-supported services and innovations emerge relative to other priorities in MHA policy during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children's mental health.

The prevalence of mental health problems among children (ages 0-21) in the United States remains unacceptably high and, post-COVID-19, is expected to increase dramatically. Decades of psychological knowledge about effective treatments should inform the delivery of better services. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has been heralded as a solution to the persistent problem of poor quality services and has, to some extent, improved our understanding of the contexts of delivery systems that implement effective practices. However, there are few studies demonstrating clear, population-level impacts of psychological interventions on children. Momentum is growing among communities, cities, states, and some federal agencies to build "health in all policies" to address broad familial, social, and economic factors known to affect children's healthy development and mental health. These health policy initiatives offer a rare opportunity to repurpose D&I science, shifting it from a primary focus on evidence-based practice implementation, to a focus on policy development and implementation to support child and family health and well-being. This shift is critical as states develop policy responses to address the health and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on already-vulnerable families. We provide a typology for building research on D&I and children's mental health policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Scottish mental health and capacity law: The normal, pandemic and 'new normal'.

A state's real commitment to its international human rights obligations is never more challenged than when it faces emergency situations. Addressing actual and potential resourcing pressures arising from the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in, amongst other things, modifications to Scottish mental health and capacity law and the issuing of new guidance relating to associated practice. Whether these emergency or ordinary measures are invoked during the crisis there are potential implications for the rights of persons with mental illness, learning disability and dementia notably those relating to individual autonomy and dignity. This article will consider areas of particular concern but how strict adherence to the legal, ethical and human rights framework in Scotland will help to reduce the risk of adverse consequences.

Mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland and the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining powers, procedures and protections under emergency legislation.

This article examines the changes made to mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland through temporary emergency legislation, known as the Coronavirus Act 2020. The purpose of the legislation was to respond to the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the increase pressure placed on health services in the United Kingdom. An overview is provided of the government's rationale for the changes to Northern Ireland mental health and capacity laws, as well as exploring how they are likely to be operationalised in practice. Consideration is also given as to how such changes may impact upon existing human rights protections for persons assessed as lacking mental capacity. It is argued that it is important that regular parliamentary oversight is maintained in relation to the potential impact and consequences of such changes during the period they are in force. This should be done in order to assess whether they remain a necessary, proportionate and least restrictive response to the challenges faced in managing mental health and capacity issues in Northern Ireland during this public health emergency.

Preventing prejudice by preserving the spirit of mental health legislation during the COVID-19 national emergency.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 national emergency activates legislative powers that allow a proportional infringement upon individual liberties. We canvas the complex legal landscape governing mental health consumers in this climate, highlight ethical considerations in application of the law and offer a simple algorithm to navigate this space. CONCLUSION: In times of emergency, it is crucial that we uphold the safeguards embodied within mental health legislation to prevent prejudicial treatment of mental health consumers.

Emergency mental health legislation in response to the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic in Ireland: Urgency, necessity and proportionality.

Many countries have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, emergency mental health legislation in response to the global pandemic of Covid-19 (coronavirus). In Ireland, the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, 2020 amends the Mental Health Act 2001 to permit the Mental Health Commission to request an independent psychiatric report about an involuntary patient from any consultant psychiatrist who is not treating the patient (and not just those on its designated panel). This independent examination may occur 'in person', 'by other appropriate means', or even, 'due to the exigencies of the public health emergency', not occur at all, once this is explained in the resultant report. The 2020 Act acknowledges that 'the exigencies of the public health emergency' might hamper the independent psychiatrist's work and requires a written report from the patient's treating psychiatrist 'no earlier than the day before' the tribunal, in lieu of the psychiatrist physically attending a tribunal hearing, although, if possible, they will attend (i.e. phone in to) a tribunal held by conference call. The 2020 Act permits the Mental Health Commission to, if necessary, appoint tribunals 'consisting of one member who shall be a practising barrister or solicitor'. Such a tribunal shall, if possible, consult with a consultant psychiatrist if the reports from the independent psychiatrist and treating psychiatrist conflict or if it is otherwise 'necessary in the interest of the patient'. A tribunal can extend an involuntary order by a second period of 14 days 'of its own motion if the tribunal, having due regard to the interest of the patient, is satisfied that it is necessary'. Tribunals for current involuntary patients will be prioritised over retrospective tribunals for discharged patients; a tribunal can direct a witness to provide 'a written statement' rather than attending; and the patient can make written representation to the tribunal instead of physically attending a tribunal hearing, although they may attend (i.e. phone in to) a tribunal held by conference call. Psycho-surgery for involuntary patients is banned. While it is clear that revisions are urgent and necessary in light of Covid-19, the proportionality of these changes will depend on how, and the extent to which, they are used in practice. With good communication, efficient team-working and close adherence to professional codes of practice and ethics, it is hoped that these amendments will result in a review system that is as reasonable, robust and reassuring as the current, highly unusual circumstances permit.